Standing Committee D

[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Clause 17 - The British Transport Police Authority

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question again proposed.

John Spellar: I had just begun to endorse the tributes paid to the work and effectiveness of the British Transport police. I must emphasise, however, that it is a police force for the railways and deals with railway-specific offences, apart from emergency situations when it can act outside the railways. Therefore, offences that are non-railway specific, such as bigamy, are the appropriate jurisdiction of county forces. Obviously, my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who represents a constituency in the south-west, can tell me what it is in Wiltshire that makes bigamy of such interest to the county police force there.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially as he mentioned Wiltshire and bigamy. My purpose in mentioning bigamy this morning was to emphasise the diminishing number of offences in relation to which the British Transport police are not empowered to act. I wanted to probe the Minister—if that is the correct phrase—on which offences come outside the powers of the BTP, because bigamy is the only one that I could find.

John Spellar: In essence, it is offences that are not likely to be railway specific.
 Questions have been asked about how the role of the British Transport police compares with that of county forces. The questions took two forms. The first related to the chief constable and the chairmanship. I can tell the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) formally, as I did informally, that the force is not unique in having its chief constable appointed by the Secretary of State. The Ministry of Defence police and the National Criminal Intelligence Service are similar in that respect. The simple reason is that the authorities that govern those forces are all appointed and have no democratically elected element, as exists in county forces. In the context of the BTP and the Ministry of Defence police, the Secretary of State is the elected representative who can be held democratically accountable through the parliamentary process. 
 Secondly, I was asked why there should be rail-specific work. The policing of the railway requires a specialist police service to deal with the threat of terrorism, the problems of trespass and vandalism, and the network nature of the railway system, which provides an easy escape mechanism for criminals. The 
 Government, therefore, consider that the railways are best protected by a unified police force, which can provide seamless security to the entire network.

Andrew Murrison: In that case, why do airports and ports and all the other multifarious forms of transport for getting people around the country not have their own specialist police forces?

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman may be aware—or he may not, as his constituency is landlocked—that several major ports have their own police services, and that only in the case of smaller ports is policing the responsibility of the county forces. That subject was raised in the Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay).
 We shall explore the appointment of the chief constable during our consideration of later amendments, although, I hope, at shorter length than might have been expected. We shall also explore the jurisdiction of BTP outside the railways, particularly under the sunset clauses of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, when we discuss the appropriate amendments 
 Clause 17 sets up a police authority to oversee and manage the British Transport police. It will replace the BTP committee appointed by the Strategic Rail Authority, which currently oversees the running of the force. The Government's guiding principle is to mirror for the BTP as far as possible the way in which local police authorities are organised and governed under the Police Act 1996. The creation of an independent authority for the BTP is a vital step in improving the public status and accountability of the force. 
 Schedule 4 sets out the details of membership and proceedings of the authority, and its financial arrangements. No doubt those will be discussed when we debate that schedule. It is clear that the impact of any cost increase in the funding requirement must be matched. That ties in with the question of the increase in national insurance contributions. The Committee will have to take decisions on levels of policing with advice from the chief constable.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. He touched, rightly, on the fact that I raised the matter of the national insurance contribution. The British Transport police already operates as a national force. It has only recently had jurisdiction outside the railways, under section 100 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Together, that Act and sections 75 and 76 of the Police Reform Act 2002 gave it additional powers. My concern has not been quelled. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) raised the matter of additional resources on Second Reading.
 The British Transport police will be at the forefront of any incident on the railways or—now that it has additional powers—elsewhere. Its anti-terrorism role, and that as a security force in combating terrorism, is a new one. In addition to the increase in national insurance contributions, there is also the question of the pay reviews of different professions, which has featured in the press, and we must consider inflation. 
 In addition, the cost of the police reform programme will presumably impinge equally on the BTP force which, like other forces, will have to renew the equipment—not least radio communications equipment—that will be needed in the event of a terrorist attack. I imagine that we would wish to give it the best possible equipment. 
 I repeat my comment that, as with other police forces, it appears that we are not going to increase the resources that we make available. Therefore, the force faces, at best, a standstill budget for the current year, despite the additional responsibilities allocated to it. The work of the force deserves recognition; it has been given additional responsibilities and its work has been commendable. The fact that we have not experienced a terrorist incident is in no small part due to its work, but I fear for its morale. It should be given the best resources. 
 I should like to hear from the Minister what discussions his Department has had with the Treasury in making a special case for the force, given its recent additional responsibilities, and the fact that it will have to deal with inflation, national insurance contributions and the costs of the police reform programme and new equipment.

Andrew Murrison: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments about the British Transport police. The force seems to be a most professional organisation. Nevertheless, does she agree that there is no room for complacency, particularly in the light of rising levels of reported crime on railways and a falling detection rate?

Anne McIntosh: I take great pleasure in agreeing with my hon. Friend, whose point goes to the heart of BTP morale. It is important that we provide the resources, particularly in relation to clause 17, for the establishment of the BTP authority under a statutory regime.
 Will the Minister answer my questions on the establishment of what will be a statutory national BTP force? How many police are currently operational under the BTP authority, how many officers are retired, and what are the projected retirements over the next five to seven years? I assume that projected retirements will reflect the rest of the country and that a sizeable proportion of officers will be approaching retirement. On the back of that question, what proportion of the operational budget currently goes to pay the pensions of retired officers? I cannot believe that the BTP is any different from other police forces. Indeed, it may be in a worse position as it provides a national police service. That information would be tremendously helpful, and we may wish to return to the point in our debate on schedule 4.

John Spellar: As the hon. Lady was speaking about the financial pressures on the BTP, and I heard no proposals from her to remedy them, I wondered how the problems would be solved by her party's proposed 20 per cent. cut in public expenditure.

Richard Bacon: I hope that my point is germane, Mr. Hood, because it relates to public expenditure, which the Minister just raised. The
 Lord Chancellor's Department has just spent £232 million on 11,000 computers, at a price of £20,000 per computer. That is how money is being wasted by this Administration.

Jimmy Hood: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was just testing the Chair. He will not try again.

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman has been influenced by the Arts Council of England's grant of £11,000 to someone in his constituency to walk around kicking a McDonalds package. He obviously feels that that citizen must not outdo him for irrelevance.
 The hon. Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) spoke about morale and effectiveness. We should reiterate that the BTP's figures are among the best in the country, particularly those that relate to the reduction of robbery. The force is increasingly effective in taking criminal elements out of the rail system, not only on the London underground, but throughout the country. I hope that hon. Members from all parties will encourage local magistrates courts to expedite and facilitate the granting of antisocial behaviour orders when the BTP applies for them to exclude undesirable elements from the railway system.

Andrew Murrison: How many antisocial behaviour orders have been fielded by the BTP?

John Spellar: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the BTP had the power to apply independently for antisocial behaviour orders only from 1 December 2002. The last figures that I saw showed that about 40 orders were going through the system. Previously the BTP had to work with local county forces, such as the Metropolitan police with regard to the London underground. Now it can make its own applications. I hope that hon. Members will encourage magistrates to look favourably at using antisocial behaviour orders to enhance the safety and, indeed, the general ambience, of the network.
 The hon. Lady also talked about funding. She will be aware that the bulk of funding for the British Transport police comes from the rail industry. Over and above that, the Government have been providing additional funding for their work. We have provided £2.3 million to allow them to participate fully in the new national police radio system, which she mentioned. We have also provided funds to enable them to contribute fully to the expansion of the national DNA database and £1.36 million to enable them to participate in the Government's street crime initiative in London, with considerable success. The Government are prepared to consider further funding for similar initiatives case by case. 
 I was asked about the current number of officers in the BTP. In 2002 there were 2,123 officers and 644 support staff. The main BTP superannuation fund—the 1970 section—has 2,158 members on active service, 353 deferred pensioners and 1,913 pensioners. Another scheme—the 1968 section—has one deferred pensioner and 37 pensioners. The British Railways pension scheme has about 625 people on the active 
 scheme, 120 deferred pensioners and 22 pensioners. I do not currently have figures for the BTP contribution BTP to that scheme.

Anne McIntosh: Can the Minister confirm that there are fewer people on operational service than there are pensioners or people with deferred pension rights?

John Spellar: On a rapid calculation, I would say that that is likely to be the case. The hon. Lady should be aware that BTP pensioners differ from the pensioners of county forces. They are funded on a shared cost basis, with the employer paying 60 per cent. and the employee paying 40 per cent. That means that only 60 per cent. of increased costs arising from investment return affect the authority's annual budget. The last valuation of the scheme revealed that it was in surplus. That has dealt with the majority of the issues raised by the hon. Lady. Once more, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Anne McIntosh: That leaves just one further issue. I do not know whether it was omission or design, but is the Minister aware that neither clause 17 nor, apparently, any other provision, including schedule 4, refers to provision for formal negotiation with the British Transport Police Federation? That serious omission leaves a great gap in the Bill. Section 71 of the Transport Act 1962 lays down rules governing labour relations, as is the case with many other Acts. Therefore the clause should refer specifically to the British Transport Police Federation. It may seem odd to Committee members, but the Conservative party has extremely good relations with the police federations.
 I repeat that the omission may have been unintentional—perhaps even a typographical error—but I wonder whether the Government intended to single out the federation. Will the Minister explain why the Bill makes no mention of a formal negotiating structure?

John Spellar: We are reverting to the former alliance between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. The hon. Lady is now going in for normal Liberal Democrat tactics, which are to find out what the Government intend, then demand it—and probably issue a Focus leaflet on it. She is in touch in this case, however, because the Government intend to table an amendment to deal with the matter.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 - British Transport Police Authority

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in
schedule 4, page 57, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(g) at least one person each who has knowledge of and experience in relation to the interests of— 
 (i) employees in railway services, and 
 (ii) trade unions related railways services.'.
 Mr. Hood we are all delighted to see you back in the Chair. I thoroughly enjoyed your put-down of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) a 
 moment ago; you reminded me of the character Dirty Harry, played by Clint Eastwood, who used the immortal words, ''People don't cross me twice.'' You made it clear that the hon. Gentleman should not cross you a second time. 
 Not only are we delighted to see you, Mr. Hood; we are also delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I am advised that they have been doing sterling work in Westminster Hall, where my hon. Friend was able to give a clear statement of the Liberal Democrat position on congestion charging. I understand that the Under-Secretary failed yet again to state the Government's position. 
 The Under-Secretary suggested earlier that it would be inappropriate to list the type of people who should be members of the Office of Rail Regulation. He argued that it would be inappropriate, although when challenged he was prepared to indicate the skills and experience that he thought it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to bear in mind when selecting people for appointment. 
 When it comes to the new board for the British Transport police, however, the Government are far less coy about listing the types of people who are to serve on the new police authority, and their backgrounds. Paragraph 2(1) lists the various people from whom it is believed right and proper to select members of the new body. You were not here earlier, Mr. Hood, to hear me say that I was delighted that the Government were belatedly introducing such a body, having promised to do so in a press release back in 1998. Now, in 2003, they have eventually agreed to do it. 
 I am genuinely delighted that schedule 4 should list the possible backgrounds of those who should be selected to serve on the new body. The amendment would not add a string of categories of people but one category—those who have knowledge of and experience in the interests of railway employees and of the trade unions related to railway services. 
 Given the long history of the Labour party, my amendment should receive a great deal of support from the Government Benches. After all, the lists of the organisations from which members of the new authority will be drawn rightly include representatives of passenger groups. However, passenger groups do not cover the Strategic Rail Authority. The Government thought it appropriate that there should be a representative from the Strategic Rail Authority, so they threw one in. The Government say, ''Things are different in Scotland; that is not necessarily covered by passenger interest groups.'' Therefore they add a Scottish representative. They also say, ''Wales will not necessarily be represented by the passenger interest groups, so let us have a representative from Wales as well.'' That is all good and proper, and I applaud the Government for it. However, it is odd that the Government include the employers of the bodies that operate the organisations that run our railways but omit any reference to employees as representatives on the body. That is a major omission for a Labour Government to make. 
 Normally, the Minister would be able to use the traditional argument that he does not like lists of who should be represented on bodies. However, that does not apply here because the Government have already provided us with a list of the bodies that they think should be included. It is strange that a Labour Government should omit employees from the list, although I believe that they are willing to consider additions to it—employees is the addition that the amendment proposes. 
 The Minister may say that the Government do not normally include employees or employee organisations such as trade unions on such lists. That is often true. However, it is not true about the railways because when Network Rail was established—a body that Liberal Democrats suggested long before the Government acceded to its introduction—the Government accepted the need to have trade unions represent railway employees on the board. The Government have already established a precedent, and the Minister will be aware that Transport for London refers specifically to the entitlement of trade unions to represent those who work on the London underground under Transport for London. 
 I have pointed out what I am sure is merely a lacuna in the Government's thinking, a small omission. A Labour Government will always want to ensure that the rights of employees and trade unionists are taken into account. There are several examples of when they did not make the same mistake—when they got it right—and I hope that they will get it right this time. 
 It is vital that there are representatives of rail users on the authority because they are, sadly, from time to time, the victims of the very crimes that will be investigated by the British Transport police. I hope that the Minister will accept that railway employees are also sadly far too often the victims of crime. The figures are frightening: in 2001–02 there were no fewer than 1,738 physical assaults on railway employees, and 352 of those were serious enough to be reported to the Health and Safety Executive. Given that employees make the same vital contribution as employers, representatives from Scotland, Wales, the Strategic Rail Authority and passenger groups, they should be included on the list. They are as likely as anyone to be victims of crime on the railways, so a powerful case can be made for their inclusion. I am sure that the Government have made a small mistake, which they will want to rectify in a brief response saying, ''We got it wrong: the hon. Member for Bath has got it right and we are prepared to accept his amendment.''

Anne McIntosh: It is intriguing that the Liberal Democrats believe that it is more appropriate to have people from employees in railway services and associated trade unions than a member of the British Transport Police Federation. The hon. Gentleman may like to reflect further on that.

Don Foster: Were the hon. Lady to table an amendment to that effect—she has not yet done so—we might be minded to support it. I hope that she will
 not misinterpret my interest in employees and trade unionists as a lack of interest in the body to which she refers.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Member for Bath will not be surprised to hear that an amendment along those lines might well be tabled. We now have witnesses to the promise of support from a certain quarter. We are hopeful that that support will be forthcoming at the appropriate time.
 Railway employees and their dedicated unions recognise a requirement for public consultation. The list of consultees mentioned by the hon. Gentleman expressly referred to passengers and passenger representative groups as the equivalent of employees and their representatives. The unions are likely to argue that an employer cannot articulate the full diversity and candour of opinion and that the union side is best placed to express the employee perspective. It will be interesting to find out from the Minister for Transport whether the reference was merely an oversight or left out by design.

Don Foster: The hon. Lady asked some pertinent questions of the Minister, but she has not clarified whether she supports the amendment. I gave my support to her proposals, so it would be helpful to know her position.
Miss McIntosh rose—

John Spellar: The alliance between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is clearly continuing.

Jimmy Hood: Order.

Anne McIntosh: I am mindful of the hon. Gentleman's request and I hope to hear whether the Government will introduce a similar amendment further down the line. If so, it would save members of the Committee the trouble of tabling and voting on another amendment.

Linda Perham: I support the amendment because I favour including employee and trade union representatives. As the hon. Member for Bath suggested, our party has a proud history of defending, promoting and improving workers' rights. The exchanges going on between the two Members leading for the Opposition parties pose the issue of whether the trade unions can be viewed as representing employees. Paragraph 1(1)(b) states:
''shall ensure that the number of members is an odd number neither lower than 11 nor higher than 17.''
 If one adds up—and I am married to a maths teacher—the four persons in paragraphs 2(1)(a) and (b) and then the four individuals mentioned in paragraphs 2(1)(c), (d), (e) and (f), the total comes to 12. If one person were to represent both employees and trade unions, that would mean a total of 13. That would not be a problem, unless one was a triskaidekaphobic, which for those who have not had the benefit of a classical education—like what I have—is fear of the number 13. I think that there are 13 members in things such as covens. One person to represent the two groups mentioned in the amendment would take the number up to 13, but there is nothing to prevent us having up to 17 people. 
 However, I merely draw the Committee's attention to the matter: at the moment there would be 12 members, and if we added in the two proposed representatives, that would be 14, so the matter would need to be resolved if the intention was to have an odd number.

John Spellar: Let me bring some clarity to the matter. The arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) on clarifying the schedule were persuasive.
 Paragraph 2(1)(b) does not preclude employees or representatives of employees from serving on the authority, because it rightly says 
''at least four persons who have knowledge of and experience in . . . providing railway services.''
 That could certainly include, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath would not wish to imply that it did not include, those who are employees in the railway system. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said, there are good arguments for clarifying the situation and for ensuring that that category includes someone who has such experience, we shall be happy to examine the matter. 
 We recognise that railway staff are often threatened and face physical abuse when going about their daily duties, and given the knowledge and experience of railway employees, they could make a useful contribution to the role of the authority. Although I can give no guarantees, we will consider the points raised in the debate, with a view to returning to the issue later in the Bill's passage. 
 There seemed to be some confusion with regard to the role of trade unions. I understand that the Conservative party has difficulty in understanding trade union roles, and particularly of the necessary separation of the roles of management and trade union representation. 
 We are discussing the role of those who work for the railway, not those who work for the British Transport police. The Bill replicates procedures for the county forces so as to set up an analogous procedure, as far as possible. In county forces, local authorities are represented because they collect the police precept. Those who collect funding for the British Transport police are primarily train operators, who therefore have a relevant interest, as well as having an interest in ensuring the effective policing of their networks. 
 I must say to the hon. Member for Vale of York that, as far as I am aware, there is no provision for representation of the Police Federation on the police committees in the county forces. The police committees are composed of representatives of local authorities and magistrates courts, and the federation does not have members on authorities for local forces. A police officer cannot serve on a police authority for his area, because he would be in the invidious position of being both employee and employer. 
 There is, therefore, some confusion in the hon. Lady's position, and the Liberal Democrats may have some difficulty in supporting her contention if she tables a subsequent amendment, unless they believe that we should reconsider and make changes to 
 provision for all police forces to introduce a different mechanism for constructing police authorities.

Anne McIntosh: That is all very interesting—

John Spellar: And true.

Anne McIntosh: I was not suggesting for a minute that the Minister was trying to mislead the Committee. Nothing could be further from my mind.
 In this and the preceding debate, the Minister has failed to answer the point that section 71 of the Transport Act 1962 clearly sets out the rules governing labour relations in the British Transport Police Federation. He has not given me or any other member of the Committee a satisfactory reply about why the Bill is silent about that.

John Spellar: The hon. Lady is confusing two areas. As I said, we will table an amendment on labour relations in due course. At this stage, we are dealing with an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath relating to the British Transport police authority and its composition, and we have undertaken to reconsider that amendment sympathetically. That is quite different from the question whether there should be direct representation of the trade union or the association of workers that represents the work force governed by the authority. A different principle underlies that point from the point made by the hon. Member for Bath and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North that those who are, in effect, the customers of the service—the employees on the railway and the companies that operate the rail system—should be represented in the governing authority for the police force. Labour relations and governance are two quite separate issues with much wider application. They rarely find favour with any of the parties or with the trade unions concerned.
 I ask the hon. Member for Bath to withdraw his amendment.

Don Foster: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. He has made a powerful case for representation of the Police Federation on the authority. While I am minded to accept his advice, I assure him that that would create only a small fissure in the alliance that is gradually building among Opposition Members on various aspects of the Bill. I was grateful for his clear explanation of the difficulties that might arise if another sort of amendment were accepted. However, since there is no such amendment, it would be inappropriate to discuss it further.
 I thank the hon. Member for Ilford, North for supporting the principle of my amendment if not its precise words—although the hon. Lady did not say explicitly that she did not support the wording. I am aware that her remarks goaded the Minister, who praised her for helping to clarify my amendment. I hoped that I had made its meaning clear to the Minister, but if it gives him pleasure to give credit to one of his hon. Friends and if the end result is that we achieve what we were trying to achieve, so be it. I am sure that the hon. Lady can now write her own ''Focus'' and claim the credit for it. 
 The Minister touched on whether paragraph 2(1)(b) would be sufficient to cover the issue. He is right that it 
 could be interpreted as including categories of people such as employees and trade union representatives. However, he has probably got the message by now that it would be preferable to avoid any doubt by referring directly to them in the Bill. I welcome the fact that he initially said that he would be more than happy to look at that. Although he could not make any guarantees, in subsequent comments he said that he would look at it sympathetically. There is a clear commitment to consider the issue, about which many members of the Committee feel strongly. I hope that there will be an opportunity later to test the Minister's mettle in sticking up for underlying principles that I always thought were part of the Labour party's philosophy. With those remarks, I beg to ask to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 44, in 
schedule 4, page 58, line 20, at end insert— 
 '(3A) A person shall not be eligible for appointment as a member of the Authority if his estate has been sequestrated in Scotland or if, under Scots law, he has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors.'.—[Mr. Spellar.]
 Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss some of the wider issues that pertain to the schedule. We missed you this morning, Mr. Hood, although you were extremely well represented by your co-chairman, Mr. Hurst. Also this morning I alerted the Committee to the fact that although the industry, especially the train operators, is at the moment well represented in the British Transport police authority, there is concern that it will be less well represented, even though it will pay more for the privilege of running the authority.
 Chapter 2 of the consultation paper described clearly the role and constitution of the British Transport police authority, and proposed that the authority 
''should normally have thirteen members, all appointed by the Secretary of State in accordance with standard appointment procedures. To avoid problems in the case of the Authority having a shortfall in membership for any reason, we propose to include in the Bill a range of 11–15. The Secretary of State would have the power, by Order, to increase or lower the range.
All members would be under a statutory duty to act in the interests of the efficient policing of the railways. They would not be appointed in order to act in the interests of any particular lobby. However, members would typically be appointed because of their ability to represent the interests of: passengers; the railways industry; Scotland, Wales and the English regions; and judicial, policing and social issues.''
 The Conservative party has attempted to introduce a degree of regional representation elsewhere in the Bill, so it is source of some satisfaction for us to see that paragraph 2(1)(d) of the schedule refers to 
''a person who has knowledge of the interests of persons in Scotland . . . who is appointed following consultation with the Scottish Ministers'',
 and paragraph 2(1)(e) to 
''a person who has knowledge of the interests of persons in Wales . . . who is appointed following consultation with the National Assembly for Wales''.
 The question arises of why the Government are being a little inconsistent. We flagged up powerful arguments for regional representation elsewhere in the Bill, but we were told that that was not appropriate. Now, we are suddenly told that it is particularly appropriate here. Therefore, I seek guidance from the Minister, before he is called away on other business. We need to know why it is appropriate to have regional representation here, which we welcome, but inappropriate to have regional representation in the Office of Rail Regulation and other aspects of the Bill. 
 I understand that there are only four out of 11 such people on the present British Transport police authority. Yet we are told that an enlarged BTPA will be comprised of 13 people, only four of whom have experience of railway services. Does that mean that, of all the funding operators, there will be only four representatives out of 13 or more?

John Spellar: The schedule does not say ''only'' with regard to either passengers or rail services. It says ''at least four persons''. It is not as exclusive as the hon. Lady is suggesting.

Anne McIntosh: We are getting somewhere. Can the right hon. Gentleman—

John Spellar: Read the schedule.

Anne McIntosh: This is not just me speaking. I have had discussions with the industry, and it has put it to me that its influence will be weakened. However, it is being asked to cough up for the whole process. This is the opportunity for the Minister to say—

John Spellar: The schedule says it.

Anne McIntosh: The schedule—the Minister's schedule, the Government's schedule—says at least four. This is his opportunity to say how many there will be. That is what scrutiny is all about. For my benefit, and for that of the train operating companies and those who are being asked to fund the exercise, perhaps he can help us by telling us what the total number will be and what the proportion of those operating the railway, who are paying for this, will be.
 I notice that one person will be nominated by the Strategic Rail Authority. That is very interesting. I am not sure—perhaps the Minister will direct us—that we know which provision to look at in that regard. For how long will people be appointed? 
 Elsewhere, the Bill, with regard to the setting up of the Office of Rail Regulation, specifies for membership a period of five years, which could be renewed. I am still waiting to hear from the Minister whether that could be renewed once, twice or any number of times. This is the Minister's opportunity to correct the impression that we were left with this morning. I am a country girl and am not used to this line by line scrutiny, so I would like guidance from the Minister as to the term of office of each individual, and some assurance that the terms will be of similar lengths—I should imagine a minimum of four or five years. It would be helpful to know that. 
 Next, we find the provisions for the chairman and deputy chairman, and then the disqualifications, which I presume that the Minister will tell us already exist in other legislation. I wait to hear about that. Can the Minister tell us how often the British Transport police authority meets at present? Will it continue to meet with the same regularity or, in view of the new responsibilities conferred on the British Transport police might it be minded to meet more frequently? I am delighted to see that it will conduct its proceedings in public. 
 Part 3 of the schedule has the heading ''Money and Property''. I am curious to know whether the Minister will say that this part does not relate to money, because we heard this morning that the savings provisions did not relate to savings at all. Paragraph 16 states: 
''The Authority shall establish a fund to be known as the British Transport Police Fund.''
 Can the Minister confirm whether such a fund already exists? Will it simply be transferred to the new authority? Will Parliament be informed and will the relevant Select Committee have the opportunity to discuss it? 
 Can the Minister give us an idea what the annual budgets will be? That reverts to my earlier questions, which are more appropriately addressed here. I found the figures staggering. I realise that North Yorkshire, like many forces, has the problem that a large proportion of its operational budget goes on non-operational officers, namely those who are retired. It is particularly alarming to hear the number of deferred pensioners. Presumably that means that they are earning money elsewhere but could imminently become pensioners. I was even more surprised to learn the number of retired pensioners under three separate heads. 
 Can the Minister tell us the proportion of the overall operational budget that goes on such retirement funds? He gave us the figures, but my police force can tell me that proportion straight off. It would be helpful to know how the statistics for long-term sick leave for the British Transport police compare with the national average for local police forces. That would give us some idea of morale. We need more than a standstill budget. One cannot underestimate the pressure of work on the British Transport police, particularly in view of the extra anti-terrorism and security duties that they are being asked to carry out.

John Spellar: And their television performances.

Anne McIntosh: Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale drew attention to the fact that, at 10.30 pm on 28 January, BBC1 showed the first part of a documentary series on the British Transport police. I have not had the opportunity to watch that yet. I am sure that the video will be imminently available. Can the Minister tell us what the budget in paragraph 19 will be in view of those extra duties and the large number of pensioners?
 I assume that it would be a little premature to ask what the arrangements for making payments under paragraph 21 will be. We will wait to see what form the 
 Government amendment will take to ensure that negotiations take place with the British Transport Police Federation on remuneration, allowances, expenses, compensation and gratuity, particularly in relation to members of the police force. He should take the opportunity to say why that provision has not been included in the Bill yet. Has there been a problem? The federation picked it up as a source of concern, which could have been avoided if the amendment had been tabled. 
 On paragraph 22, it would be helpful to know the staffing levels of the British Transport police authority and whether, with its new statutory responsibilities, it intends to keep the same level of staff or to increase it. On paragraph 23, I again urge the Minister to introduce at the earliest possible opportunity the amendment to which he referred. Paragraph 24 deals with pensions. We are acutely aware—this is an apolitical point—that police pension funds are unfunded. I was not aware until the Minister told us this afternoon that the employees of the British Transport police pay a sizeably greater contribution out of their salary each month to the pension fund. I hope that I understood him correctly. Will he confirm that the contribution is 40 per cent., compared with 11 per cent. for employees of other British police forces?

John Spellar: The hon. Lady is getting a little confused, so I shall clarify the matter for her. She seems to be going through the script that she set out before I said that the British Transport police pension funds are not like Home Office police pension funds, which she rightly said are regulated directly by central Government Departments and are not funded schemes. As I said, the schemes for the British Transport police are traditional trust-based schemes, managed by independent trustees within the legal and tax frameworks of private sector pension schemes. I described the split between employer and employee contributions in the scheme, not the percentage of salary paid to the scheme. For the reassurance of members of the scheme and the satisfaction of Committee members, I also indicated that the last actuarial assessment showed that the scheme was in surplus.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for that clarification, but it re-emphasises the point that the British Transport police federation should be consulted on such matters. I am delighted that the Minister has agreed to introduce an amendment for that purpose.
 Paragraph 27 says: 
''The Secretary of State may make a payment to the Authority . . . by way of a grant''.
 If it is a grant, will it be an annual, continuing or time-limited grant? If it is a loan, will the Government guarantee it and what will the terms of repayment be? I was interested to see the provision in paragraph 31: 
''The Authority may acquire, develop or dispose of property.''
 It would be interesting to know about the property that the existing British Transport police authority currently owns and that will be transferred under the Bill. 
 Those are our main questions. There are several issues, which I will not rehearse, and we look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

John Spellar: Again, the hon. Lady shows some confusion as well as an alarming tendency to centralise: she wants us not merely to set up the authority but to do all its work for it before it even comes into existence. She asks about the frequency of authority meetings. That will be a matter for the authority when it is set up. It is not for the Minister to direct, and it is certainly not appropriate to include such a provision in the Bill. She asked how many staff the authority intends to employ. That will be for the authority to decide when it considers how to provide appropriate policing that is consistent with its broader objectives and obligations.
 The hon. Lady asked a pertinent question about the tenure of a position on the authority. Members of the present authority have a tenure of four years, and schedule 4(3)(1) states that: 
''A member of the Authority shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment''.
 I shall return to the Committee to explain our thinking on ensuring consistency on that. 
 The hon. Lady asked about the annual budget for the British Transport police. At present, it is £130 million a year. I will come back to the hon. Lady to tell her how much of that budget is employers' contribution to the pension scheme. As I say, it will be managed within the legal and tax framework of a private sector pension scheme. The British Transport police authority will be independent of Government, as will its budget. 
 The hon. Lady raised the matter of grants. As she is aware, there is not an annual grant, or a commitment to make one. However, there is provision to make a grant, if it is justified. Earlier I spoke about funds that were provided for the British Transport police to participate in the police initiative on radios. I hope that I have allayed some of the hon. Lady's concerns, and explained how the authority will operate and how its financial regime will work.

Anne McIntosh: When will the Minister introduce the amendment that he referred to earlier? He did not respond to a question about long-term sick leave in the British Transport police, and he did not say whether his Department would seek more money from the Treasury for the additional responsibilities and costs that the British Transport police will incur under the Bill.

John Spellar: Again, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the funding of the British Transport police. The hon. Lady would have to ask county forces how they intend to operate their precepts. The funding for the British Transport police comes from the industry, but there are provisions for the Government to make additional grants to the force, so that it can undertake various initiatives. I hope that that has clarified the matter. She also asked when we intend to introduce the necessary
 amendment. I am sure that she will understand that we will, as always, introduce it when appropriate.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 - Exercise of functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I have a brief question about clause 18. We are told that the authority shall
''aim to ensure the efficient and effective policing of the railways and shall, in particular, have regard . . . in relation to a particular year, to the National Policing Plan for that year.''
 Will the Under-Secretary show me where in the Bill we are told what the relationship will be between the British Transport police and the local police force? As regards the jurisdiction, it has been brought to our attention that a short phrase could make all the difference when looking into a case: ''in the vicinity of''. 
 The Under-Secretary talked us through the circumstances in which certain accidents, such as an accident involving a trolley bus, would be investigated by the local police force for that area, whereas an accident involving a tram would be investigated by the rail accident investigation branch, presumably in conjunction with the British Transport police. I want clarification on the relationship envisaged between the local police force and the British Transport police in the national policing plan, particularly where there may be some doubt about where an accident took place.

John Spellar: Essentially, the relationship between the British Transport police and the local police force will be as now. The Bill will not change the roles; it will change the governance of the British Transport police, not the operational relationship between the British Transport police and the county forces. Some of the changes to the Ministry of Defence police allowed greater co-operation between the forces, particularly on the boundaries between their respective areas.
 Clause 18 examines the new police authority and sets out the factors that will influence its decisions when establishing its aims and objectives in the exercise of its functions. It says that, when carrying out its functions, the authority will have to take account of objectives set by the Secretary of State and others laid out in the national policing plan for that year. It puts the functions of the British Transport police authority police within a national framework in which specific objectives can be set by the Secretary of State. It looks at the wider inter-relationship with the national policing plan. None of that impacts immediately on the local relationship between the British Transport police and the county forces, with which it interacts on an operational basis. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Establishment of Police Force

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in
clause 19, page 8, line 35, after 'expenses of the', insert 'British Transport'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 55, in 
clause 19, page 8, leave out line 36.
 No. 56, in 
clause 20, page 9, line 2, after 'Constable of the', insert 'British Transport'.
 No. 57, in 
clause 20, page 9, line 30, after 'Constable of the', insert 'British Transport'.

Anne McIntosh: The amendment is purely for the purposes of clarification. We have just had a brief, but helpful discussion and the Minister has made some useful comments about the relationship between the British Transport police and the British police force generally. Certain clauses relate to amendments Nos. 54, 56 and 57. Whenever the police force is referred to in the Bill, it would be much better to distinguish it by using its full name and to refer to it as the British Transport police force. That is why the amendments seek to delete line 36. I am sure that it is referred to as ''the Police Force'' purely as a shorthand reference, but I believe that it could be confusing if the force and other forces are referred to in the context of other legislation. We therefore suggest that, throughout, the Bill should refer to the British Transport police force in order clearly to distinguish it from its local counterparts.

Tom Brake: The notes prepared for me on the amendment describe it as grammatical pedantry. That may be a little unfair, although to be consistent the change will have to be reflected throughout the Bill, which would be a considerable undertaking. I suspect that it will not warrant the effort.

John Spellar: I think that it is accurate to describe the amendment as grammatical pedantry. I urge the Committee reject it, if the hon. Member for Vale of York does not withdraw it.

Anne McIntosh: That is all very interesting, but the Minister has not grasped the point that there will be confusion were we minded to withdraw the amendment. It may be appropriate to withdraw it, but Minister may regret his lack of support for it, because we believe that it would lead to greater clarity. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 20 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 - Constables

John Spellar: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in
clause 23, page 11, line 19, after 'Force', insert 
 'appointed in England or Wales'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 36, 65, 66 and 67.

John Spellar: At present, in England and Wales, Home Office police constables make an attestation under the Police Act 1996. In Scotland, police constables make a declaration under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. Attestations and declarations are oaths made by persons who have been appointed as a police constable. In England and Wales, constables attest that they will serve the Queen, uphold human rights and preserve and prevent all offences against people and property. In Scotland, constables declare that they will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable.
 Clause 23 provides that the authority shall appoint constables, and clause 24 provides that the authority can appoint special constables. Both clauses apply the existing attestation and declaration used in the respective countries to BTP officers and special constables. 
 The amendments are necessary to make it clear that the clauses apply the declaration or attestation to BTP constables, depending on where they are appointed. Amendments Nos. 64 to 67 make it clear that a single attestation or declaration by a BTP constable will be sufficient; he will not need to make both. For example, when a BTP officer in Scotland is appointed, he will make a declaration under Scottish law. He will not then need to make an attestation under the law of England and Wales should he need to cross the border. Thus, a BTP constable will have the powers and privileges of a constable throughout Great Britain by virtue of clause 29(1). Amendment No. 36 solely concerns the BTP constable's declaration under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. At the moment, clause 23(4) refers to special constables. That is incorrect. The amendment ensures that BTP constables appointed in Scotland will make a declaration.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister moved the amendments very eloquently in the briefest possible fashion. If the amendments are necessary, and if they are so good, why were they not incorporated into the Bill at an early stage? The Minister must have known of the situations that the amendments address. Can he explain why they have been tabled at this late stage?

John Spellar: Because the amendments make the law better and clearer.

Don Foster: The Government made a mistake.

John Spellar: In that case, the amendments make the law even clearer.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 36, in 
clause 23, page 11, line 22, leave out 'special'.
 No. 65, in 
clause 23, page 11, line 22, after 'Force', insert 'appointed in Scotland'.—[Mr. Spellar.]
 Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 - Special constables

Amendments made: No. 66, in 
clause 24, page 11, line 32, after 'Force', insert 
 'appointed in England or Wales'.
 No. 67, in 
clause 24, page 11, line 35, after 'Force', insert 'appointed in Scotland'.—[Mr. Spellar.]
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I rise to ask the Minister to confirm what the role of the special constables will be. Will the role of special constables in the British Transport police be much the same as the role of those in the regular force? They will surely have to travel in the course of their duties, sometimes for considerable distances. Can he confirm that the conditions of the special constables, and the way in which they are appointed and dismissed, will be the same as the conditions of existing transport police and local police officers?

Don Foster: I should like to make two brief points. First, I place on record my praise for special constables who work in normal county police forces and for the British Transport police. Some county police forces have recently carried out extensive advertising campaigns in order to attract additional people to do that valuable work. Has the Minister thought about further advertising for BTP special constable posts, which, as the hon. Member for Vale of York has pointed out, cover a much wider area? Secondly, has the Minister given any thought to the working relationships between special constables, ordinary constables and a new category of person whom we may be seeing on our railways in the near future? I understand that various train-operating companies, which are responsible for running a number of our railway stations, are intending to appoint station wardens and there could be a problem if the working relationships have not been sorted out. I would be grateful for his comments on the issue.

Andrew Murrison: The hon. Member for Bath was right to pay tribute to the special constabulary. I shall, in a few weeks' time, be taking part in the Wiltshire weekend that is put on by the chief constable responsible for the recruitment of special constables in Wiltshire. It would be nice to know that the British Transport police are doing something similar, because it has only 68 special constables. It would be nice to know that the Minister is doing what he can to ensure that the numbers increase.

John Spellar: Hon. Members should be pleased with the proactive role that the British Transport police, under its chief constable, Ian Johnston, are taking on police and transport safety officer numbers on parts of the network. It is also looking at different roles that are designed to enhance the safety not just of those who travel on the network and the staff, but of those who live in the vicinity of the network. For example, on South West Trains, considerable work is being undertaken with the Metropolitan police, community safety officers and representatives of the local community. Often, railway stations attract certain criminal elements that make a nuisance of themselves in the station and in the vicinity of neighbouring shopkeepers and residents.
 British Transport police have sworn in a number of Connex employees as special constables and Connex provides the necessary time off for training and operations. That arrangement enhances the police presence in the railway system, both on the stations and on the trains. In both cases special constables provide a considerable enhancement to the service and that should be more widely publicised. If hon. Members are interested, we could make information available and, if necessary, we could provide briefing outside the Committee.

Andrew Murrison: In connection with violence at railway stations, does the Minister agree that some 8 per cent. of the British Transport police's total budget and one third of overtime payments go towards football policing? The special constabulary has a particular role in the policing of football matches, which makes the BTP's 68 special constables look like a very low number. It is imperative that the number of special constables in the British Transport police be increased.

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that policing special events is not exclusively the remit of the British Transport police and that there is considerable engagement with county forces in dealing with any exceptional events.
 Community support officers work for the county forces. Although the British Transport police are currently excluded from the relevant legislation, there is considerable interchange and co-operation between the BTP and the community support officers in particular locations. However, the chief constable of the British Transport police is able to set up schemes to accredit suitably skilled and trained non-police employees with powers to support the BTP in combating crime and disorder, public nuisance and antisocial behaviour on the railways. That is where the station wardens come into the picture. Powers may be made available to an accredited person. Those powers would include the power to issue fixed penalty notices, which were much derided by Opposition Members when they were proposed, but are now an extremely successful weapon for police forces in dealing with antisocial behaviour. They may be issued in relation to trespassing, antisocial behaviour, the confiscation of alcohol or the removal of abandoned vehicles. 
 In addition, BTP and South West Trains have launched a scheme to introduce travel safe officers, whose main role will be to enforce railway byelaws, provide support and assistance to the BTP and ensure that travelling with South West Trains is as safe as possible. That shows the range of options that are available as a result of train operators co-operating with BTP to provide the necessary training for personnel. Those personnel will have a range of powers, from issuing fixed penalty notices and enforcing byelaws to the powers of special constables. That will allow forces to react to the range of difficulties that they experience, from nuisance and antisocial behaviour to criminal offences. 
 All those factors indicate that the issue is being taken seriously by the British Transport police and that effective measures are being taken. The powers of those various groups are defined in the Police Reform Act 2002. I hope that I have clarified the legislation for the hon. Member for Vale of York and shown that the BTP and the train operators are very much on the case. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Jimmy Hood: With the consent of the Committee, I will put clause stand part on clauses 25 to 28 together.

Anne McIntosh: Object.Clause 25 Cadets

Clause 25 - Cadets

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I do not intend to delay the Committee for long on this matter, but I want to take the opportunity to note the important role of cadets in recruitment to the British Transport police. Will the Minister confirm that cadets serve a form of apprenticeship? The idea is to catch youngsters, give them a training and, one hopes, a 30-year career with the British Transport police. Will the Minister tell us whether the numbers of police cadets with the British Transport police are rising, falling or remaining the same?

John Spellar: Quite simply, police cadets fulfil an important role for the Home Office police forces, allowing those forces to employ new recruits with a view to their becoming constables of the force in the future and having a full career in the police. It provides an excellent entry point for many capable youngsters. However, the British Transport police were previously unable to recruit police cadets because they were not covered by the relevant provision in the Police Act 1996. Clause 25 will allow the authority formally to employ police recruits for the British Transport police, and I commend it to the Committee.

Anne McIntosh: With that background, clause 25 is a welcome addition to the Bill and we support it.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Civilian employees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: When we were discussing clause 17, the Minister said that there were currently 644 support staff in the British Transport police. I presume that they are civilians. It would be interesting to know whether the level of civilian employees has been more or less static. Since 1997, when the Government came to power, there has been an emphasis on recruiting more civilian non-professionals to professions such as policing and teaching as classroom assistants and so on. In respect of the British Transport police, it would be helpful to know whether the figure has remained fairly static, and what the trend has been in, say, the past five years. Can the Minister tell us the projected number of civilian employees for the next five years?

John Spellar: The hon. Lady will not be surprised to learn that the number has been going up. That is absolutely right, because the British Transport police, like other police forces, need to consider what work requires the powers of a constable, and which roles, undertaken by police officers, do not require the extensive police training and discipline. We must tackle that, and one way to do so is to consider the rationalisation of the forms that need to be filled in and the processing that needs to be undertaken with regard to action being taken against criminals. I fully accept that that must be done.
 I hope that Opposition Members will be supportive when the Government try to slim down such procedures, and will not bog us down in arguments regarding procedural issues that are frankly of interest only to criminals and lawyers. There are many tasks that could appropriately be undertaken by civilians and that should not tie up properly trained officers, who should be out on the front line protecting our citizens and the structure and network of the rail system.

Anne McIntosh: It is of note that the Minister has confirmed my concern that there has been a drift towards an increase in the number of civilian employees. We will monitor that. I hope that the Minister will not have too much regard to our procedural concerns; however, we will cross that bridge when we come to it.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Terms of employment

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Clause 27 relates to the terms of employment of constables and other persons employed in the service of the British Transport police. We are told in the Library note that staff terms of employment, including pension benefits, will not be affected by the transfer to the authority. It therefore causes me some concern to learn that the proposals in the Bill could have a significant adverse effect on the pension rights of contributors to the British Transport police superannuation fund.
 It is proposed that the Railways Pension Trustee Company will no longer be the trustee. That would affect the current investment arrangement, as the pensioners—the British Transport policemen and women—are part of a pooled fund for investment purposes, and it is not certain whether they could remain with it. If they could not, it would lead to significant increased costs. It is proposed that the Secretary of State's consent be required for changes to the scheme, especially with reference to general police officer pension benefits. 
 As the Minister said earlier, the British Transport police scheme is a funded scheme, and is therefore totally different from the Home Office scheme, which he elaborated on at some length. Improvements to the scheme have been made in the past without reference to the Home Office scheme. Would that power be curtailed by the Secretary of State? The pension arrangements for administration staff effectively remain unchanged, so why would the Minister and the Government propose such widespread changes to the British Transport police scheme? If they are proposing such changes, it would be helpful to know why such far-reaching changes are intended, given what the Minister said earlier. I want him to explain why the British Transport police will be disadvantaged in this way and why these changes will be made.

John Spellar: Clause 27 ensures that the British Transport police authority's employment practices fall within the criteria set by the Secretary of State. British Transport police officers will hold the office of constable and also be employees of the authority. In transferring to the British Transport police authority from the Strategic Rail Authority—which is their current employer—British Transport police officers' existing terms and conditions of employment will be protected. I would have thought that that would be a matter of considerable concern not only to British Transport police officers—and to other staff—but to Committee members.

Don Foster: Purely for the avoidance of doubt—because I hope that I know the answer to this question—can the Minister confirm that he is referring to future as well as existing members of staff of the British Transport police?

John Spellar: That is to ensure that the British Transport police authority's employment practices fall within the criteria set by the Secretary of State. I hope that that eliminates the doubt.
 The Secretary of State currently retains control of British Transport police pay through the Strategic Rail Authority's financial framework issued under the Transport Act 2000. This clause will enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the authority maintains pay parity for British Transport police constables with their Home Office colleagues. 
 The question of the change of trustee relates to different legislation. This is all about member-nominated trustees. The police scheme is non-compliant and it must be compliant by 2007. That cannot happen while the trustees have 50 per cent. representation from the police force. Therefore, the question that the hon. Member for Vale of York raises is important but it relates to pensions legislation rather than to this Bill or this clause. I will have to seek information from the Department that is responsible for pensions legislation to clarify the matter for her. As I understand it, this matter is not raised by this legislation; it was already raised under separate pensions legislation.

Anne McIntosh: We appear to have a breakdown in communication between the Government—the Department—and the British Transport Police Federation. It is clear that it does not feel it has been properly consulted on this.
 I do not care which legislation my question relates to. For the purposes of the Bill, we need to know what the terms of employment are going to be. In his reply the Minister was obviously playing for time. The focus must be on the British Transport police—men and women who serve us very well, regardless of whether they are special constables or full-time—although this point is about pension provision for full-time officers. 
 The Minister has failed to reply to my point. I leave him with the following questions, and if he fails to respond to them in Committee, we will have to revert to this point in detail on Report and the other remaining stages. He is saying one thing and the British Transport Police Federation is saying another. This may be under different legislation but it will impact on clause 27. If the Library, which usually has its finger on the pulse and knows precisely what is going on, informs us that staff terms of employment, including pension benefits, will not be affected by the transfer to the authority but may be affected by other factors, that is noteworthy and a cause of concern. The British Transport Police Federation believes that the proposals outlined by the Minister could have a significant and adverse effect on the pension rights of members of the British Transport police superannuation fund. I presume that that relates to current beneficiaries of the fund; it seems extraordinary that they could be so disadvantaged. 
 I seek further clarification. If the terms of employment are going to change, the Committee needs to know. If it is proposed that the railway trustees pension company will no longer be trustees, I want to know why. There must be compelling reasons for that. If the company has served the force and the superannuation fund well, the Minister should share those reasons with the Committee. Were that change to take place, we are told that it could impact on current investment arrangements, because British Transport police pension funds are part of a pooled fund for investment purposes and it is not certain that they can remain in that pooled fund. I am told that the change would lead to significantly increased costs. Will the Minister explain why and how he proposed paying them, particularly for those in the superannuation fund? Will the BTP will remain in the fund; and if not, where would it go? 
 If the consent of the Secretary of State has to be sought for the changes, will the Minister talk the Committee through the circumstances? How will the Secretary of State's consent be sought, and how imminent are the changes? Are they likely to be within the time frame of the Bill's coming into effect? It would help to know what the impact of the Secretary of State's consent would be for general police officer pension benefits. 
 The British Transport police scheme is funded and is therefore different from the Home Office scheme. Improvements to the scheme have been made in the past without reference to the Home Office scheme. Would it still be possible to improve the British Transport police scheme without reference to the Home Office scheme? The pension arrangements for administration staff remain unchanged, so why should the Minister propose such widespread changes to the British Transport police scheme?

John Spellar: I hope that I can provide some clarification for the hon. Lady, although I am not sure all of what she said comes under clause 27. Perhaps she is referring to clause 70.

Don Foster: Schedule 5.

John Spellar: And the appropriate schedule.
 The Secretary of State will be enabled by order to make the necessary amendments to the railway pension trust and to the British Transport Police federation superannuation fund. When making an order, the Secretary of State must consult the trustees of the scheme. Such an order must also receive the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Pension rights for railway staff, enshrined in the Railways Act 1993 and the relevant statutory instruments, will not be affected. 
 It is intended to amend the railway pension scheme, so that changes to the pension benefits proposed by the authority as employer of the support staff will require the Secretary of State's approval. As a result of the controls in the Government's financial framework, the same applies to BTP constables. 
 As to the railways pension trustee company, only one out of 16 directors represents the force, but legislation requires one-third representation by 2007. A working group is due to commence on Thursday. It will include representatives of all interested parties, including existing pension scheme trustees, BTP management, the British Transport Police Superintendents Federation, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government actuaries of the Department. However, I stress that nothing in the provisions will undermine the historic independence of the pension scheme or undermine existing protections of railway staff pension rights. The authority, as employers of BTP officers and support staff, will continue the previous committee's role in participating in staff pension arrangements. The hon. Lady should reflect on why she believes that particular difficulties will arise that will not be covered by the working party that will commence its work on Thursday.

Anne McIntosh: That is helpful as far as it goes. As the hon. Member for Bath said, we shall have further opportunities to debate the matter in more detail. I want to give the Minister time to return to it in a rather more coherent fashion later.
 Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Trade union membership

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster: I merely want to gain a better understanding of subsection (2)(b). I ask because the briefing notes, so invaluable in Committee, remain remarkably silent about this clause. I am slightly confused, and I am sure that the Minister will explain it with his customary clarity. The provision suggests that if a member of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, for example, chooses to train and become a member of the British Transport police, it would be possible, subject to
''the consent of the Chief Constable'',
 for him to remain a member of ASLEF, contrary to subsection (1). Have I misunderstood the provisions?

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful for the opportunity to debate the clause, particularly subsection (2)(a). A serving member of the British Transport police force has the right to become a member of the British Transport Police Federation. It is worth exploring, as this is the first reference to that federation, the Minister's view of the relations between the British Transport police authority, the chief constable and the British Transport Police Federation. The Minister referred earlier to the impact and recent reform of the pay review for the police. Will the changes apply across the board—not just to other police forces, but to the British Transport Police Federation?
 When we debated clause 27—it applies to later clauses, too—we saw that the British Transport Police Federation has concerns about the drafting and application of the Bill, so it would be helpful to hear, as I said, how the Minister envisages the relationship between the British Transport police authority, the chief constable and the British Transport Police Federation. 
 I am interested to know why, historically, a British Transport police constable or cadet cannot be a member of a trade union. I should really know the answer to that; I have a hazy recollection of it. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Jimmy Hood: May I remind members, in case they are tempted to do so, that they are not allowed to read magazines in Committee?Clause 29 Jurisdiction

Clause 29 - Jurisdiction

Tom Brake: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in
clause 29, page 13, line 8, at end insert— 
 '(h) where assistance is requested by a local police force.'.
 This is a probing amendment. We welcome the measures that give the British Transport police statutory jurisdiction over the railways. Those were originally set out in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Police Reform Act 2002. 
 Our amendment has two purposes. First, it seeks to establish that there are clear limits to the powers that a constable would be able to exercise. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that a vision of British Transport police constables roaming far and wide, getting involved in things that may not directly be in their remit—although they may relate in some way to railway matters—is fanciful and not possible. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on that. Secondly, the amendment seeks to make it clear that there will be cases in which it will be important to involve the British Transport police and to make use of their expertise. 
 The purposes of our amendment are clear. Amendment No. 11 touches on the issues of boundaries and where the BTP can and cannot operate. Therefore, I wonder whether the Minister could make it clear in his response that the Government do not support proposals, which have been mooted in the past, to transfer a number of BTP staff—those involved in the policing of the London underground—to the Metropolitan police. We could not support that.

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which permits the British Transport police to act when another police force requests assistance, is subject to sunset provisions—a review of the Act. That review is in progress. The subsequent report may recommend that certain provisions of the 2001 Act cease to have effect six months after the report is laid before Parliament. Even if the Privy Council report specifies that, Parliament can still vote to retain the provision.
 Amendment No. 11 may have some merit. However, it is only right that we allow the Privy Council review to run its course. I am confident that the provisions will remain on the statute book. However, that is for the Privy Council to decide. The provisions have already benefited the fight against crime considerably. British Transport police have already assisted in 1,500 incidents outside their railway jurisdiction. The amendment would pre-empt the review, and it would be wrong to circumvent it in that way. The proposed jurisdiction in force together with the retained jurisdiction under the 2001 Act allows British Transport police officers to act as constables outside the railways in all circumstances in which the public would expect such an officer to act. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Tom Brake: I shall happy to withdraw my amendment, although I was seeking a specific assurance from the Minister that the possible transfer of British Transport police staff involved in policing London underground would not be supported. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in
clause 29, page 13, line 8, at end insert— 
 '(h) and in the vicinity of the sites specified above.'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
 Amendment No. 59, in 
clause 29, page 13, line 9, after 'forms part of', insert 
 'or is in the vicinity of.'.

Anne McIntosh: By way of background, it may be helpful if I set out our thinking.
 Like Home Office police force, the British Transport police's main duties consist of public policing, but unlike the Home Office force, almost all the British Transport police's duties, in particular its patrols, occur on private property, albeit private property to which the public has access—railway stations or trains, for example. The British Transport police's existing jurisdiction on the private property flows from a combination of section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 and numerous private agreements between the Strategic Rail Authority and the railway companies. 
 Most operators of railway vehicles and certain railway assets are required by the licensing regime in the Railways Act 1993 to have a licence. [Interruption.] The Minister may find it useful to listen, as I will ask him a tricky question. I am sure that his response will be, as ever, most helpful. 
 It is a condition of those licences that the operator must enter into an agreement with the SRA to engage the service of the British Transport police on its property. Those agreements combine with the 1949 Act that gives the British Transport police the right to police most railway property. That is important because under a later clause—possibly clause 32—a civil offence will be committed if the agreement is breached. That is the first time that such a civil offence has been introduced, and it will be punishable by a fine. We will return to that point when we debate the relevant clause. 
 The amendments, particularly amendment No. 58, are important because there is a serious omission in the Government's drafting. The vital omission is a phrase that the Minister used earlier, which is ''in the vicinity of''. It tripped off the tongue then, and those are four words to which the Minister has become accustomed. As he is so comfortable with the concept of that phrase and its relationship with the jurisdiction of the British Transport police, why have the Government chosen to omit it from the Bill? 
 It has been put to me that the four words ''in the vicinity of'' are important because they enable the force to undertake operations with other forces in and around railway property. The British Transport police have had the power had under previous legislation, and the jurisdiction granted by Parliament to the British Transport police is extended by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. That Act is renewable, and the jurisdiction could be withdrawn. I am told that the force could not function without the ability to mount joint operations in the vicinity of stations or specified sites. I am sure that the Minister would want to address that. 
 Clause 29 gives the British Transport police a wholly statutory railway jurisdiction throughout England, Scotland and Wales. Within that jurisdiction, a British Transport police constable has the powers and privileges of a Home Office constable. We are told that the jurisdiction extends over all railway property. It also extends outside railway property—for example, to a town high street—throughout Great Britain in relation to railway matters. I understand that that jurisdiction will allow such a constable to pursue a person who commits an offence on the railway and then absconds from the railway property. 
 The two amendments are crucial to give the British Transport police the power to police railway property day to day. It is important to empower them in that way, and there has been an oversight on the part of the Government. The amendments would give the British Transport police the power to police railway property and property in the vicinity on the specified sites. Clause 29(2) and (3) would then give the proper power to the police. Given that the 2001 Act powers can be rescinded at any time, the BTP believes it important to have that power. 
 On property not listed in clause 29(3), I understand that a British Transport police constable is subject to the same restrictions that apply to a Home Office constable. In particular, a British Transport police officer could not enter private property unless invited, or he held a warrant, or he was exercising another right of entry—under another Act of Parliament, for example. 
 That relates to our specific request under an earlier amendment that, for the purposes of an inspection or investigation relating to an accident or incident under the Bill, the inspector or investigating officer of the rail accident investigation branch be accompanied at all times by a British Transport police officer. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government have that in mind. 
 As regards the right of entry into not only railway property, but property in the vicinity, British Transport police officers carry out many of their duties in public areas of railways, such as station concourses and trains. Those duties involve activities such as routine public patrols that do not fall into the categories—entry by the invitation of the lawful occupier of the property, for example; the execution of a warrant; entering and searching premises under a statutory power for which no warrant is required; or arresting a person for any of the offences for which an officer may arrest a person without a warrant. The example in that regard is the Football Spectators Act 1989. 
 To allow the British Transport police to continue with their public policing duties, it is proposed that there will be certain places where a British Transport police officer will have all the powers and privileges of a constable of the regular police force. He will also be able to patrol such places and be on that property without needing any special permission or incident to have occurred before he may enter the property. I seek clarification on that from the Minister. [Interruption.] Just for the purposes of clarity, and since notes and agreements are flying around, I wish to record that no one from the usual channels has consulted me, and my usual channel is absent, so I do not know what is going on. Will someone inform me what it is?

Don Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Hood. I passed the hon. Lady a note asking whether she thought it was worth coming back after the Division in the House.
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Anne McIntosh: The purpose of the amendments is to round off what is in the Bill. However, they fall short of giving total enabling powers to the BTP. Our amendments aim to enable constables to patrol those parts on and in the vicinity of the railway to which the public normally have access, including stations, trains, track and public access area—anywhere where unlawful incursions might pose a threat to railway safety. Such places are understood to be on any railway track, any land or property comprising the permanent way of the railway, whether or not it is used for other purposes; on any railway system or transport using parallel rails that support and guide a vehicle on flanged wheels and/or track; on any form of guided transport; on any vehicles guided by means external to the vehicles on any railway network, line and installation associated with the lines on and in any railway station; on any land or other property used for or in connection with the purposes of a railway passenger station or terminal whether or not it is used for other purposes; on property on and in any railway vehicle, locomotive or train on a network, whether or not it is being used for the purpose of carrying goods or passengers by rail or for any purpose whatsoever; and on property on or in any place owned or managed by the British Transport police or the British Transport police authority in connection with the provisions of the services of the British Transport police. That is the proposed basis of the jurisdiction of the British Transport police over the railway.
 To recap, the purpose of amendments Nos. 58 and 59, without which the British Transport police will have difficulty in operating, is to correct the omission of the words ''in the vicinity of''. It is vital; without it, the force would be unable to undertake operations with other forces in and around railway property, even by virtue of its powers under other legislation. I ask the Minister to consider that it might have been an omission. He used the very words himself, and they will be relevant when we come to consider clause 32 and the new civil offence. The amendments are simple and helpful and I hope that the Government will adopt them as their own. Without them, the British Transport police will be unable to exercise their rightful powers.

John Spellar: I hope to reassure the hon. Lady and the Committee that the proposals do not reduce and restrict the jurisdiction of the BTP. Rather, they provide the force with a clear statutory basis. It is no longer necessary, therefore, to include the words ''in the vicinity'' and ''the force's jurisdiction''. I hope to explain why. Through their jurisdiction under the Bill, the BTP can act anywhere in Great Britain on any matter connected with the railway. For example, somebody standing outside railway property throwing stones at trains would still be within the remit of the BTP, and it could detain or arrest that person. In addition, through its jurisdiction under section 100 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the BTP can act throughout Great Britain in the circumstances described in that Act.
 Even if someone were outside a railway's property and committing a crime or in need of assistance unrelated to the railways, the BTP could still act. For example, if somebody were stealing a car in a public street next to a railway station, a BTP officer witnessing the crime could act immediately and arrest the offender. Similarly, a BTP officer could assist in a car accident outside a station. The provisions of the anti-terrorism legislation are subject to Privy Council review, which it would be inappropriate to pre-empt. 
 Amendment No. 59 would give BTP constables greater powers than those they have at present and than those their Home Office counterparts have. Accordingly I ask the hon. Lady to reconsider her position and not to press the amendments.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful for the Minister's comments. I may have missed it inadvertently because of the intermission, but is he in a position to say when the Privy Council will conclude its review; and why he has reached one conclusion over the words ''in the vicinity of'' when the British Transport Police have reached another?

John Spellar: I understand that the Privy Council review should be concluded by the end of the year. We believe that the provisions under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 cover the powers sought by the hon. Lady and that it would not be right to pre-empt the outcome of that review. Obviously, following the review the Government would have to consider the consequences of any recommendations.

Anne McIntosh: I am mindful of the timetable that the Minister has set out. I want to record our disappointment that he does not see fit to support the amendments. The timing is unfortunate; it poses a practical problem for the British Transport Police, but I hope it will be resolved before the Bill enters the statute book. We may have the opportunity to return to the matter at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Five o'clock till Thursday 13 February at five minutes to Nine o'clock.